Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives

Loose Housed Systems For Sows

Mike Brade, ADAS Senior Pig Consultant, North Yorkshire, England.

UK Legislation

In the UK the Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991 were introduced on the 1st October that year implementing European Directive 91/630/EEC. The Directive included a ban on Tether systems for sows and gilts, but allowed the continuing use of Sow Stalls. This Directive prohibited the installation of Tether systems after the 31st December 1995. Existing Tethers must not be used after the 31st December 2005.

The UK Parliament however passed a more stringent piece of legislation, as it was entitled to do, which extended the ban to Sow Stalls as well as Tether systems.

The UK legislation precluded the installation of new stall or tether systems from the 1st October 1991 and required the phasing out of existing systems by the 1st January 1999.

Several pieces of UK Welfare legislation were later amalgamated to form the Welfare Of Livestock Regulations 1994 which came into force on 10th August 1994.

The main points of the legislation relating to sow housing, when finally implemented on 1st January 1999, are as follows:-

1. The total banning of tethered systems for pigs except whilst they are undergoing veterinary examination.
    
2. The requirement for any pig (singly or in a group) to be able to turn around without difficulty at all times.
    
3. Minimum dimensions for pens housing single pigs based on the length of the pig - snout to base of tail. The pen must be at least an area equivalent to the square of the length of the pig and the shortest side must be at least 75% of the length of the pig.

Separate guidelines have also been issued giving more details of the minimum dimensions of pens where sows are housed in groups and particularly where accommodation is converted to loose housing.

4. Pigs must not be kept in a stall except for:- feeding, cleaning out of accommodation, veterinary inspection or Artificial Insemination(AI) etc. Effectively sows can be stalled for short periods of time for specific purposes. A sow can be housed in a free access stall - one which it can enter and leave of its own free will as long as the pen it exits into meets the requirement to enable it to turn round without difficulty.

Other parts of the legislation deal with general housing and management factors.

Where pigs are housed together measures must be taken to prevent fighting which goes beyond normal behaviour and pigs which either show persistent aggression or are the victims of aggression shall be isolated.

The Implications Of The Legislation

There are widely divergent estimates of the numbers of units with stall or tether systems at the time the legislation was implemented. Certainly there were wide regional differences. It would be fair to say that the majority of larger units employed either stall or tether systems. One survey published at the time suggested that around 50% of units already employed loose housed systems. In the area where I am based I would estimate that perhaps 75 - 80% of units had stalls or tethers.

Initially there was a belief amongst producers that the legislation would be at least modified to allow the use of stalls for a period of pregnancy - perhaps the first 5 weeks. MAFF have made it clear from the start that this would not be the case.

There was also a lot of ill feeling that producers in other European states have only to stop using tethers and can continue with the use of full stalls. Effectively producers in these states can take out tethers and install full stalls in the same buildings. They also have a longer period to take tethers out of use.

The relatively long run-in period - just over 8 years - meant that few producers made the change initially. Many held out thinking that financial aid would be introduced to help ease the financial burden of the change. This has not been forthcoming though MAFF has spent a considerable amount of money highlighting the requirements of the legislation and offering advice on alternative systems.

The Choices Facing The Producer

Having accepted the situation most producers sat down and tried to decide what system of feed delivery they were going to invest in. There are however a lot of decisions to make before you get to this point:-

Will you convert existing buildings or build new?

Most of the housing used for individual housing was never constructed with loose housing in mind and is not strong enough to resist the attentions of mature sows. The general recommendations for space allowance for loose housed sows is considerably higher than that available in stall houses. As a general rule roughly 60 - 70% of the number housed individually could fit into the same house with loose housing so some extra housing will normally be required. Much of the existing accommodation is of completely the wrong shape for the usual loose housing systems. Conversions mean compromise and this often results in housing that is difficult to manage. One other factor in deciding whether to convert is what to do with the sows whilst the changes are made. Most producers have opted for a practical long term system rather than a cheaper, make-do, system.

What Manure Disposal System

The majority of tether systems and almost all stalls were in slatted, slurry based housing. In contrast almost all loose housed systems are straw based. The vast majority of new housing since 1991 has been in straw housing. Indeed there is likely to be increasing pressure on slatted housing for all classes of stock on the basis of both welfare and emissions in the coming years. On many all slurry units however this means extra investment in handling equipment and storage facilities for both straw and manure. There are also labour implications. Straw systems are normally cleaned out twice or three times per week.

What Group Size Do You Choose

In individual accommodation every sow has its place and can easily be seen by the stockperson. In loose accommodation there is the option of large groups with sows entering and leaving the group each week, weekly service groups which stay together throughout pregnancy or smaller groups with each weeks sows broken up into a number of sub groups. Combinations of these options can be used in different stages of pregnancy. In many cases the choice of feed system dictates the group size. The choice also depends considerably on management attitudes and ability. Many stockmen used to seeing every sow feeding individually find it very difficult to adapt to looking at sows running in groups of 200 or even 400+. Spotting discharges or sows which are sick can also be surprisingly difficult particularly in a system like Electronic Sow Feeders(ESF) where sows are not all feeding at the same.

Mixing Sows

Inevitably sows fight when mixed as part of the natural formation of the dominance hierarchy or peck order. The aim must be to enable the formation of the peck order with as little stress and physical damage as possible. The main housing requirements to encourage this appears to be the provision of adequate space and the ability of the vanquished individual to withdraw from the immediate sight of the victor. In large yard situations this is often not a problem but in small group sytems it can be difficult. Research has suggested that the use of a specialised mixing pen through which all sows pass prior to moving into the general sow accommodation is a high priority.

Staff Abilities And Preferences

In the UK industry and I guess the Canadian industry as well one of the biggest problems facing producers is the availability of good staff. A good stockman is a very valuable commodity. Many producers have realised the importance of involving staff in the decision as to what route to take. Staff who have spent all their working lives with sow stalls may find it very difficult to adapt to loose housing systems and involving them in the decision is a good way of increasing the commitment to the venture.

What Feed System To Opt For

Finally you come to the choice of feed delivery system. Feeding options can be broadly broken down into Individual and Group Systems. Efficiency of housing utilisation is a factor which has to be considered here. Systems with a specific number of feed spaces are somewhat limiting and require provision for extra spaces in case different numbers of sows come through from week to week or if sows return to service. 10 - 20% extra sow places are often required to minimise the need for mixing sows at different stages of pregnancy. Larger group options like ESFs and Spin Feeders tend to be more flexible numbers can vary - within limits - without upsetting the overall system.

Individual Feeding
Perhaps the greatest advantage of individual housing is the ability to individually feed sows. The loss of this ability should not be taken lightly. In general terms the cost of group feeding systems eg floor feeding is cheaper than individual systems and many producers have taken this option on cost grounds.

Loose housed individual feeding systems fall into two categories:-

1. Traditional systems eg cubicle systems with scraped passages or yards with individual feeders. In both these situations sows are confined during the feeding period and subsequently released.
    
2. Electronic Sow Feeders - the ESF system -where each sow wears a transponder and feeds in sequence through a feed station. Every sow has it’s own feed allocation stored in the computer and the animal receives all or part of it’s allocation when it enters the feed station. The stockman makes regular assessments of the sows condition and adjusts the feed allocation accordingly.

The first group tends to operate in small groups of 4 to 8 sows whilst the second is usually in large groups - minimum 40 up to 400+ due to the cost of the feed stations. ESF systems can be relatively cheap as long as the group size is reasonably large but the more traditional systems are expensive in terms of space, equipment cost and labour requirement - to allow individual feeding there is a large element of manual work.

Group Feeding
Group feeding falls into two basic categories:-
Trough feeding / Single Space feeding and Floor feeding.

Floor feeding has been used for many years either manually fed or using dump feed hoppers which are usually automatically filled and semi automatically released. There are examples of systems which operate in both large groups of 100+ and small groups 5-6 sows. Floor feeding tends to be an aggressive system as sows have to compete for feed head to head. Less able sows tend to receive less than their full allocation.The range of sow condition in yards can be difficult to manage. The only way to ensure that all animals get enough is either to increase the overall feed allocation which is inefficient or remove the less able sows to individual pens which is costly in housing terms. To improve the spread of feed across the floor area Spin feeders have been developed to throw feed over a wider area. This can mean that sows don’t have to feed in such a confined area but they do spend a large proportion of the day hunting for the odd lost nut.

Producers with wet feed systems can utilise simple trough feeding either in large or small groups. Sows usually consume wet feed much more quickly than dry feed which helps to minimise the difference in feed intake between individuals. There is research evidence that wet feeding systems have considerably faster settling times post feeding than dry systems.

Single space/Single drop feeding options were developed some years ago. The sows dry feed allocation is dropped at a single go in between shoulder divisions. Some sows eat faster than others and when they finish their allocation they go looking for more - leading to aggression. Trickle or Biofix feeding is a development of this system. Feed is allocated continuously over a period of perhaps 20-30 minutes but at a very slow rate - approx. 100 gms per minute. This works very well with little movement of sows during the feeding period. Feed allocation between individuals is much more even than in single drop systems and levels of aggression at feeding are lower. These systems operate on a wide range of group sizes - 5-6 is most common but there are examples with around 60 in a group.

Cost

Initial cost has got to be a major consideration but it must not be the overiding factor of choice. Investment that will be expected to last 20 years or more must be efficient in terms of labour use and feed use.

In UK terms "greenfield" development of new sow housing will cost from around ?600 per sow housed for traditional yard and individual feeder housing to around ?300 for the simplest floor feeding systems in groups of say 100+.

There have been several up’s and down’s in the pig trade over the period since the introduction of the legislation. Many people said they would go out of pigs when the ban came into effect. However the last two years have seen very good pig prices and many producers have taken advantage of the situation.

Spending on sow accommodation to meet legislative requirements is not good business. Except where housing is old or inefficient it is unlikely that there will be a return on the investment other than being able to stay in business. Many producers who have changed have increased herd size at the same time. Currently the National Herd is considerably higher partly as a result of this expansion and prices have collapsed. The confidence that has been in the industry has quickly evaporateed and many smaller producers who have yet to make the change are likely to leave the industry. On balance it is anticipated that the National Herd will remain at around the same level in 1999.

Conclusion

There were many people in the UK pig industry who thought that a unilateral ban on stall and tether systems would never happen. It did and it has resulted in a lot of very hard decision making and uncertainty in the UK industry. Having made the investment producers have major concerns that, when price differentials dictate, retail organisations will ignore considerations of the systems under which pigs have been produced and buy pigmeat from the cheapest source. That leads onto my paper tomorrow on Farm Assurance Schemes.